Karjalainen: ”Ei sovi värivikaisille”-ilmoituksesta 645 euron sakot

Comment: Remember the hotdog company in Joensuu that placed an electronic ad on mol.fi stating that people with the wrong skin color should not apply? Well the police slapped him with a 645-euro fine, according to Karjalainen.

Pekka Haukka is still denies that he has done anything wrong: “How could I have been accused of discrimination in the workplace? I was looking for an independent entrepreneur not an employee. Nobody responded to the ad and nobody was hired.”

Related

Työsyrjintä (RL 47:3) does seem incorrect as the designation of this conduct. I can see no obvious way for such an offence to arise outside of the context of an employment relationship. The elements of the offence of discrimination in employment in this context include the ideas that the offence is committed by an “employer” or an “employer’s representative” notifying a “job vacancy”. I could find nothing in the legislative history suggesting that these expressions should be understood more broadly to include arrangements between businesses.

On the other hand, the conduct does appear to satisfy the elements of ordinary discrimination (RL 11:11).

It is not entirely perverse to argue that the employment office became an accessory to this offence by failing to censor the notice that it received. The conditions are legally equivalent to a notice in a privately controlled public space such as a shop window. The controller of that space has certain responsibilities.

Any civil liability between the original offender and the employment office is a non-starter. It would imply that it was possible to enter into a contract concerning the aspects of the case for which the offender was fined.